vol 88, issue 30

[HighlandWindsLLC Miller]

I believe Nick is correct about fiction imparting "knowledge". Even when something is "made up" it comes from a collection of perspectives, facts, historical happenings, and emotional insight that contributes quite a bit of information on culture, point of views, along with often a huge amount of facts that display information and insights. Even the fiction and its success tells us something. Why was Clan of the Cave Bear so successful? Why? Why do we still here mention of Gone With the Wind, or the Secret Garden, or Wuthering Heights? Why was Michael Crighton so successful as an author. I would suggest that the combination of facts along with enticing emotional descriptions that pinpointed places in the reader's perspectives and hearts that caused them to identify with what was being written.

Nick,
This is bizarre! "Fiction is a potential method in scientific psychology." I cannot, for the life of me parse it. Is it equivalent to saying: "Fiction is a potential method in scientific physics."? Granted that science fiction has broadly anticipated many things that are now part of scientific physics, but it also anticipated many things that were not, and I hope you are not arguing that cutting edge sci-fi writers should get endowed chairs in physics on the basis of their scientific accomplishments!

When I recall you making criticisms along these lines, it was mostly to frustrate doe-eyed grad students who wanted to save the world. You argued, at those times, that if they wanted to help survivors of genocide, they would be better off writing a gripping novel that helped increase international attention to their plight; if they wanted to help survivors get along better with genocide bystanders, you would write a heart wrenching novel with a message of reconciliation; etc. The last thing you should think in either of these situations, you argued, is that everything is failing for the lack of one more scientific study in social/personality psychology. This arguement I completely agreed with. It does seem to argue for some sort of deep relationship between fictional literature and "truth."

However, I have no idea what you are getting at now. Certainly one could study fiction as an empirical psychologist, but that wouldn't make fiction a "method". Are you trying to say that a valid way to do scientific psychology is to make stuff up? No chance you are doing that. What are you trying to get at?!?

Eric



On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 12:42 AM, "Nicholas Thompson" [hidden email] wrote:

I would like, if only as a matter of principle, to rise to the defense of all those techno-barbarians on the list who cannot find voice to defend themselves, but I can only say that …

 

IF there is something valuable in fiction, if it indeed fosters or transmits knowledge,

 

Then fiction is a potential method in scientific psychology.

 

To  twist Stephen J. Gould’s words a bit:  They are Overlapping Magisteria.

 

There is no knowledge that is not potentially scientific knowledge. 

 

Nick

--

Peggy Miller, owner/OEO

Highland Winds

Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings

406-541-7577 (home/office/shop)

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org